October 5, 1978
Page 33930
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to say to the Senator that I expect to raise a point of order to the Roth amendment under the Budget Act. I discussed it with the distinguished floor manager (Mr. LONG). I think we are in agreement that it might serve the interests of the Senate if we were to have that issue raised as relatively early as possible and decide it one way or another before the substantive debate on Roth-Kemp proceeds too long.
I wonder if it would inconvenience the Senator to yield for the purpose of raising that issue now, or whether he would prefer to continue. and, if he would prefer to continue, how much longer he plans to go, so we might notify other Senators of the approximate time when the point of order issue will be raised.
Mr. HATCH. I would prefer to continue because I have an analysis I would like to get into the RECORD.
I would not like it to be broken, plus the fact that I would like to get this over so I can meet another appointment.
But I will endeavor to go — I think I have been going about as fast as I can go — but I will endeavor to expedite my remarks.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator have any idea when that might be?
Mr. HATCH. I have a number of things, some of which I will try to put in the RECORD by unanimous consent, rather than read them all into the RECORD.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. I am delighted to.
Mr. LONG. I would like to suggest that the point of order that the Senator from Maine has in mind making raises an important issue and it is a matter of construction of the rules.
The Senator, of course, will support his argument and, while I am not for the amendment, I believe that the point of order is not well taken, although, of course, I will wait with interest for the Senator's explanation and his discussion.
I think we should agree that when the point of order is made, regardless of how the ruling would go on it, that both sides will have an ample opportunity to explain their views so that when the Senate votes, I assume there will be an appeal. in any event, and when the Senate votes on the matter, both sides will have an adequate opportunity.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
How much time — maybe we can agree on the amount of time to be equally divided when we get to the point of order — 30 minutes?
Mr. LONG. I would think that this matter may take 30 minutes on each side. It is an important point. But perhaps we can do it in less than that.
Mr. HATCH. If I might interrupt, I did not realize the problem there is on this. As I said, I am a very strong proponent of the Roth-Kemp bill. Why do I not try to reduce my time down to 5 or so more minutes, or at least try to reduce it down, and then get to the point of order, rather than go on for the approximately other half-hour I have here, let me finish this up and then we will get to that?
Mr. MUSKIE. All right, 5 minutes, and maybe, in the meantime, Senator LONG and I can agree on a time limitation on it.